New Dell Ubuntu ultrabooks a step in the right direction for Linux support

But upstream hardware support is more important than preinstallation.

Dell has launched an experimental project called Sputnik to produce a Linux laptop that is tailored to meet the needs of software developers. The first stage of the project is a six-month exploratory effort that will pair Dell’s XPS13 Ultrabook with Ubuntu 12.04.

Dell’s Barton George, who described the concept this week in a blog post, hinted at the potential for a more ambitious follow-up effort if the initial experiment succeeds. Dell’s previous Linux efforts have had mixed results. The company first began to offer Ubuntu on desktop and laptop computers in 2007 after open source advocates used Dell’s IdeaStorm website to campaign for Linux preinstallation options.

The availability of Ubuntu-enabled hardware models from Dell has been spotty over the years. The dell.com/ubuntu landing page on Dell’s website often indicates that no products are available with Linux preinstalled, which was the case for most of the past year. At present, Dell is only offering two low-end Vostro models with Ubuntu to consumers in the US. Dell’s Ubuntu machines have reportedly fared better in China, where Dell has made an effort to give the Linux platform a retail presence.

Dell has also previously dabbled with Ubuntu developer machines. When it offered a Mini 10v with an incomplete build of the Ubuntu Moblin Remix in 2009, the company characterized it as an offering for developers and early adopters. And so it was: the touchpad didn’t work properly and the software was missing key features.

Through all of this, our position has been that Linux users would be better served if Dell would focus on improving Linux hardware compatibility across its line instead of trying to offer individual systems with Linux preinstalled. There are a lot of major areas where hardware support needs to be improved, especially on laptops, where power management and dual-mode graphics hardware are still not supported as well as they should be.

The preinstallation offerings in the past have been little more than a gimmick, especially given the small number of Dell systems for which it has historically been offered. The average Linux enthusiast is probably looking for a higher-end rig than the kind of ultra-budget systems that Dell has typically offered with Ubuntu. History has also shown that trying to sell Ubuntu on low-end systems to cost-conscious people who have never heard of Linux is not a winning formula.

More work to be done

Dell is clearly learning from its past mistakes and seems to have considered a lot of those issues in its Sputnik project. Using a desirable hardware configuration and focusing on developers as the audience is the right way to make an Ubuntu system that somebody might actually want to purchase.

Another area where Dell seems to be moving in the right direction with Sputnik is a focus on hardware enablement, which George talks about at length in his blog post. It’s not clear, however, whether Dell has fully learned what hardware enablement means with respect to the Linux desktop.

Hardware enablement that’s done solely to get a Linux system image that can be preinstalled on a specific hardware configuration is not particularly useful. It’s not enough to just make it work so that it can be shipped. If a computer requires a custom Linux build with binary drivers and a nonstandard configuration that can only be put together by the hardware manufacturer (which is exactly what Dell did with its Poulsbo-powered Mini 9 and some other previous systems) then it’s a failure before it even ships.

The drivers need to be open and upstream-friendly so that they can be maintained properly on an ongoing basis by people who actually know what they are doing. If the hardware isn’t fully compatible with a plain vanilla build of Ubuntu that has been downloaded from the Ubuntu website, then the user has no guarantee that the product will still be able to run up-to-date software for the full duration of its lifespan.

That’s the real problem that Dell needs to solve. Linux users want computers with known-good hardware configurations that they can continue to support themselves without having to rely on binary blobs from Dell that may or may not continue to work in the future. A major player like Dell has the resources and clout to start addressing that problem in a serious and meaningful way.

At the very least, the company needs to be careful to pick components that are supported well upstream. What would be ideal is if Dell started encouraging its hardware suppliers to open their drivers and merge them into the mainline kernel tree. That would be infinitely more constructive for advancing desktop Linux than any preinstallation scheme.

Of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. If Dell wants to use its ultrabook configuration as a starting point for working on better upstream drivers, then that’s great. What ultimately matters is for Dell to understand that the upstream work is the more important part of the equation.

It’s also critically important to understand that open drivers aren’t merely an idealogical preference. The ability to maintain driver code upstream is fundamental to the Linux development model and the only way to ensure sustainable long-term hardware support in the Linux ecosystem.

Dell’s interest in serving a Linux developer audience is commendable, and the Sputnik project seems to have a lot of great potential. But if Dell wants to make its Linux effort a success, the company has to start by understanding the upstream ecosystem and focusing on doing hardware enablement in a sustainable way.

84 Reader Comments

I'm no software/hardware expert by any stretch...but to me it seems that Linux based OS are ideal for ultrabook configurations....don't they typically require less hardware resources and performance? Plus, I would think it could lower the price point considerably.

I fear that Dell (and the restt), like the phone manufacturers, do not really want to sell hardware that people can support for themselves into perpetuity, as then there will be no new sales unless the user finds the current to be less than adequate in terms of performance.

Anyways, i take it this will not be available outside of the english speaking world?

I'm no software/hardware expert by any stretch...but to me it seems that Linux based OS are ideal for ultrabook configurations....don't they typically require less hardware resources and performance? Plus, I would think it could lower the price point considerably.

Hard to say on the price point as i recall bumping into numbers showing that the kind of bulk discount Dell gets on MS Windows and Office gets results in the software costing them nothing when Symantec and Ahead pay them to bundle 30 day previews of Norton and Nero. And back when Netbooks was something new, Dell managed to sell a Windows netbook with a mail in discount that would make it cost less then a lower spec Linux netbook.

It is the same as with computer and media product sales in stores. The real margins are in the accessories like software and cables.

The XPS 13 is a poor machine. I bought this machine, I was wanting to replace my macbook air (late 2010) model with this but returned the xps back to dell. It had a major problem where the fan sounded like a jet engine ALL THE TIME and would never turn off, the touchpad was horrible and could not do two finger scrolling that well either. Dell may have fixed these problems since then, as I was on their forums for a few weeks when this first machine came out and they were putting out firmware updates but I dont think they really can quiet the machine down that much from where it was.

Overall dell makes some good systems but they have some time before they can really put out a quality product at the price they are asking.

The XPS 13 is a poor machine. I bought this machine, I was wanting to replace my macbook air (late 2010) model with this but returned the xps back to dell. It had a major problem where the fan sounded like a jet engine ALL THE TIME and would never turn off, the touchpad was horrible and could not do two finger scrolling that well either. Dell may have fixed these problems since then, as I was on their forums for a few weeks when this first machine came out and they were putting out firmware updates but I dont think they really can quiet the machine down that much from where it was.

Overall dell makes some good systems but they have some time before they can really put out a quality product at the price they are asking.

Why in the world would you think that it was a better Ultrabook than the Air ?! I'm really puzzled by this..

The XPS 13 is a poor machine. I bought this machine, I was wanting to replace my macbook air (late 2010) model with this but returned the xps back to dell. It had a major problem where the fan sounded like a jet engine ALL THE TIME and would never turn off, the touchpad was horrible and could not do two finger scrolling that well either. Dell may have fixed these problems since then, as I was on their forums for a few weeks when this first machine came out and they were putting out firmware updates but I dont think they really can quiet the machine down that much from where it was.

Overall dell makes some good systems but they have some time before they can really put out a quality product at the price they are asking.

Why in the world would you think that it was a better Ultrabook than the Air ?! I'm really puzzled by this..

Because it has more ram (4gb), a better cpu (i7 quad), a better screen (gorilla glass), better chassis (carbon fiber and aluminum) and a better OS (windows 7)??

Dell should improve hardware compatibility with Linux across their line?

You mean that Dell should use weird, unpopular components that have Linux drivers available?

Or they could leverage their purchasing capability to push for more open source drivers. Really, GPUs are the only thing I can think of on the desktop that have proprietary drivers, and in AMD's case you have both proprietary and open options.

I do want more RAM and a higher resolution display in any new machine I buy though, 1366x768 is just not acceptable.

tfx2 wrote:

JEDIDIAH wrote:

Yes. Weird and unpopular components like NVIDIA GPUs.

You obviously never had the pleasure of trying to use a laptop with NVIDIA Optimus under Linux.

Entirely Nvidia's fault, they refuse to support it on Linux and no one but Nvidia can do anything about it. They could, but won't.

I can say first hand that 12.04 runs great on the Intel HD 3000. I don't run games, but all your desktop stuff works great, no glitches, 3D support is there, etc. Seems like fancier AMD/nVidia graphics wouldn't be needed, IMO. Maybe we will see something similar with Trinity ultrabooks (or whatever they are allowed to call them).

I would consider one of these if the price and specs were right. Like others have said I do think a better resolution is needed since Ubuntu seems to feel bigger in the font area.

I would like an Ultrabook to dump Linux on, but as noted in the blog, the touchpad doesn't do palm rejection and that's a deal breaker for me. I gave my last laptop to my mom because the touchpad didn't work well under Linux and newer kernels would result in a boot loop. If the touchpad hadn't been such a disaster, I would probably have put the effort into hunting down the cause of the boot loop, but as it was I didn't want to use it anyway.Besides, the screen was crap, which is really my complaint about all non-Apple laptops. As it is, the next machine I get will be an Apple simply because I want a decent screen and keyboard on my laptop. OS X will get scrapped for Linux, obviously, but I'm not too concerned about the cost there.

Dell should improve hardware compatibility with Linux across their line?

You mean that Dell should use weird, unpopular components that have Linux drivers available?

Or they could leverage their purchasing capability to push for more open source drivers. Really, GPUs are the only thing I can think of on the desktop that have proprietary drivers, and in AMD's case you have both proprietary and open options.

I can't see them going to the effort. Plus, some distros will still complain that the drivers aren't kosher enough or something.

I love the part of the blog entry about how revolutionary "configurations being stored in source control" is.

I can't imagine the kind of fly-by-night operation in which a dev does not have granular, revertible control over what's going on on his machine. Yes, you have to cobble together a few things to make it work cleanly, but dude, building toolchains /is part of your job/.

I'm no software/hardware expert by any stretch...but to me it seems that Linux based OS are ideal for ultrabook configurations....don't they typically require less hardware resources and performance? Plus, I would think it could lower the price point considerably.

One of those things where supporting it will cost more per device than they save until they hit a critical mass in sales. Writing decent drivers, providing unique support (there will have to be dedicated people with linux training for troubleshooting), dealing with the returns from people who have no idea what they're buying, it's an expensive long-term venture.

Their efforts in the past seemed to have been made more to placate a chunk of the market demanding the product, just so they can go "look, we tried and it sucked. Are you happy now?". Hopefully this will be a real attempt and in the long run might bring a cheaper product.

You obviously never had the pleasure of trying to use a laptop with NVIDIA Optimus under Linux.

Entirely Nvidia's fault, they refuse to support it on Linux and no one but Nvidia can do anything about it. They could, but won't.

I know it's Nvidia's fault. But that is the problem I was indicating with my sarcasm. A major hardware manufacturer who previously had good Linux support just decided that it wasn't worth supporting.

And as long as that keeps happening, life is unpleasant for people like me who do Linux development on laptops. Maybe Dell can coerce Nvidia, but I doubt that Dell is invested that deeply in Linux on the laptop.

I fear that Dell (and the restt), like the phone manufacturers, do not really want to sell hardware that people can support for themselves into perpetuity, as then there will be no new sales unless the user finds the current to be less than adequate in terms of performance.

hobgoblin wrote:

Hard to say on the price point as i recall bumping into numbers showing that the kind of bulk discount Dell gets on MS Windows and Office gets results in the software costing them nothing when Symantec and Ahead pay them to bundle 30 day previews of Norton and Nero.

It's obvious that there always were reasons why Dell would half-heartedly sell Linux. Microsoft used to charge Windows tax on every unit shipped and still puts pressure on OEMs to 'prevent piracy of Windows' by not shipping any machine without it. OEM trialware and the ability to upsell Microsoft Office and third-party software makes the net cost of Windows zero. Windows installations' tendency to exact an increasing performance penalty over time no doubt contribute to a form of planned-obsolescence in the hands of lower-skilled users, particularly when Dell refuses to ship Windows install media with the paid (but non-transferable) Windows license.

Dell customers uniformly accept the other end of this proposition, if often out of ignorance. Trialware fees subsidise Linux users most of all (or does Dell benefit from residual earnings when such installs are activated or renewed?).

Then the question is Why would Dell ever ship Linux in the first place? And the answer is almost certainly to gain future leverage with Microsoft by demonstrating a willingness to do so. AMD sometimes plays the foil to Intel for the same reasons.

Not really.I mean, Windows install are packed with junk software and ads (just wait and see for Windows8, where you'll have live tiles ads which they would find a way to a real pain to remove) to reduce the cost. Linux however doesn't have any junk to offset the price. Plus, you have the costs of supporting it, and working on a Linux version of the OEM drivers. While it's not a huge cost increase, I think the price difference won't be much. I expect a price difference of 50$ at most. On system that isn't aim at the budget market of PC's, it's not much. And if the price is an issue, you can always wait for specials, which occurs several times a year, and often, in the case of Dell.

Maybe Dell could leverage hardware vendors to start writing more Linux drivers. THAT would be impressive.

Start bumping hardware vendors from the list if they don't provide both Windows and Linux support. I bet some of their vendors would start scrambling.

It's just a slap in the face when a company starts off by targeting a new demographic with a half-assed offering. Dell seemed pretty egotistical in their past Ubuntu offers. "We threw you peons a bone...what more do you want?! Take what you can get, and stop whining, you second class citizens!"

You mean that Dell should use weird, unpopular components that have Linux drivers available?

Historically it's more often that server-grade hardware is supported, although that's not as universally true on Linux as it was on FreeBSD. Linux machines are more likely to be running 10 gigabit ethernet or SSDs than average, and of course various 64-bit RISC machines were using more than 4GB RAM with Unix and occasionally Windows long before AMD brought 64 bits to the x86.

lunarworks wrote:

I can't see them going to the effort. Plus, some distros will still complain that the drivers aren't kosher enough or something.

If a driver is released under GPLv2 (it can be released under other licenses also, like BSD) and code quality is sufficient it can be incorporated by kernel.org and/or distros. If the manufacturer can't or won't write a decent driver, do you really want to use the hardware? I submit that it's a smart investment to use Linux and BSD compatible hardware even if you never intend to run those operating systems.

tfx2 wrote:

I know it's Nvidia's fault. But that is the problem I was indicating with my sarcasm. A major hardware manufacturer who previously had good Linux support just decided that it wasn't worth supporting.

Then that manufacturer's main competitor, ATI, decided very deliberately to write open source drivers to rescue themselves from an inferior market position, and it's working. ATI is now paying developers to write open-source drivers full-time. They're still maintaining closed-source drivers separately, though -- there's outside pressure not to allow open-source code access to any hardware functions related to digital rights management, and there seems also an intention not to allow competitors access to information about new hardware releases through open-source code. Contrast with Intel, who have been open-sourcing drivers prior to hardware release, and do not seem concerned about how the competition might use that information.

<blockquote>I'm no software/hardware expert by any stretch...but to me it seems that Linux based OS are ideal for ultrabook configurations....don't they typically require less hardware resources and performance? Plus, I would think it could lower the price point considerably.</blockquote>

Linux' comparative advantage is development, Windows is good enough for web browsing, and superior for office stuff. But I want to write code (heck, I sometimes even write Windows programs under Linux). And to do that, I'd like to run VMs and to have 30 tabs open on each of the five desktops that I have browser in, and to spread it all out over 300 square inches of screen space.

Ideally that'd all be done with a tower sitting under my desk, but a beefy laptop is what I have. It weights a tonne, doesn't seem to understand to understand ACPI and the USB sockets don't work without a wedge to hold the cable up. But at least it's not a MacBook.

our position has been that Linux users would be better served if Dell would focus on improving Linux hardware compatibility across its line instead of trying to offer individual systems with Linux preinstalled.

I understand the sentiment, but I'd much rather they focus on one single model and make the experience PERFECT. No half-assed drivers, no hacked work-arounds, get support for that platform/chipset ROCK SOLID first, then worry about expanding the work across a broader line, which might be made easier doing this. A half-assed Linux support across multiple lines is sure-fire to piss off the target audience.

If the manufacturer can't or won't write a decent driver, do you really want to use the hardware?

No, certainly not. But if the manufacturer can't write a decent linux driver, but the windows one works just fine? Well not much of a problem if you're not using it. I mean you also wouldn't embargo some device, because there was no HP-UX or solaris driver would you?

Other than that at least graphics drivers are getting somewhat.. acceptable in the last few years. Well I still end up fixing xorg.conf files after every major distribution upgrade for unfathomable reasons with my 4870, but I got really good at that over the years..

adrian.ratnapala wrote:

Ideally that'd all be done with a tower sitting under my desk, but a beefy laptop is what I have. It weights a tonne, doesn't seem to understand to understand ACPI and the USB sockets don't work without a wedge to hold the cable up.

Well considering that what you have right now, is about as portable as a desktop But sure, different use cases.

What I want from my dev notebook is a good, large screen while still being portable and having good battery life. Performance? Not especially important. I can just SSH into a server and do the heavy lifting there - lots of advantages to that (although that probably depends on the job, I couldn't run my programs on even the most powerful desktop either, so I'm used to that)

If the manufacturer can't or won't write a decent driver, do you really want to use the hardware?

No, certainly not. But if the manufacturer can't write a decent linux driver, but the windows one works just fine? Well not much of a problem if you're not using it. I mean you also wouldn't embargo some device, because there was no HP-UX or solaris driver would you?

I have in the past -- I used Suns until a few years ago, and for a few years my primary home desktops were PA-RISCs running HP-UX, and I still have Alpha workstations. I wouldn't today as long as there was a good driver in the Linux kernel and/or a good driver released under a BSD license. When possible I would use network devices so you could force the device to use a real, documented network protocol instead of a sorry driver, and ensure compatibility far into the future with operating systems not even developed when the hardware was new. This network-only policy applies to printers, for example, and multifunction devices (which really need to get REST APIs soon).

Manufacturers have very little reason to maintain or update software for hardware they no longer sell. Cisco once did, but I'm reasonably sure they stopped that when the first big revenue push happened after the dot-com money changed from a torrent to a trickle. Recently I've bought devices from Samsung and Buffalo whose firmware has gone stagnant soon after, despite specific efforts to avoid that fate.

I always pay for good hardware, and the need for any driver always gives me pause, and I always use drivers from the OS vendor (explicitly including Microsoft, who certainly know how to ship quality code).

If the manufacturer can't or won't write a decent driver, do you really want to use the hardware?

No, certainly not. But if the manufacturer can't write a decent linux driver, but the windows one works just fine? Well not much of a problem if you're not using it. I mean you also wouldn't embargo some device, because there was no HP-UX or solaris driver would you?

But with Linux, all that is demanded is something vaguely like documentation, even if is just willingness to speak over email with some kernel developers. I think the real issue is that a lot of hardware is like software -- buggy and a bit shite. With enough effort, the Windows drivers can paper over this and hopefully not break when then user does something unexpected.

Quote:

Other than that at least graphics drivers are getting somewhat.. acceptable in the last few years. Well I still end

I think the graphics is still shite. See above.

Quote:

Well considering that what you have right now, is about as portable as a desktop But sure, different use cases.

Well I still put the thing in my backpack every morning and then get on my bike. That way I have the same files in both places. It's like The Cloud, only better for your health.

Quote:

What I want from my dev notebook is a good, large screen while still being portable and having good battery life. Performance? Not especially important. I can just SSH into a server and do the heavy lifting there - lots of advantages to that (although that probably depends on the job, I couldn't run my programs on even the most powerful desktop either, so I'm used to that)

Do you mean SSH within the office or across vast distances? I find that the latter kinda sucks, while the former is never quite as convenient as a desktop. On the other hand if you work somewhere with a supercomputer in the basement, the calculations are different.

Then again, I used to do numerical work on an atom netbook (it makes sense when you *also* have a decent desktop). It was fine with all that stuff, but web browsing used to tax its little brain.

the driver issue is huge... I mean, we have 3 camps conflicting with each other:

the OSS guys who want a utopian world where all drivers are open sourcecompanies who want to release binary-only proprietary driverscompanies who don't have the resources to create drivers for such a minority platform.

I can understand why we'd want OSS drivers - then my old webcam that used to work on XP and doesn't on Win7 would still work. I can't see why this wouldn't be available - its hardly that a webcam (or printer, mouse etc) would require secret sauce to make work. And the opportunity for the OSS community to maintain the code is a very big selling point to companies who can't maintain all their drivers anyway.

But I also understand why some companies have secrets they don't want their competitors to see, and thus release binary drivers. The trouble here is that the company has to keep the driver maintained... and that is a huge problem for all the different distros and versions out there.

the only practical solution is to get a standard driver interface and stick to it. An ABI would be a godsend for Linux adoption. If this ABI could be turned into a real standard, and maybe we could persuade other OS platforms to support it, we'd be able to reuse driver code for any platform - ie a company would only need to write their drivers once. Imagine if Linux came with as many drivers as Windows does. It might actually work on the desktop instead of being a crapfest of incompatibilities.

I think this is the biggest thing slowing adoption of Linux desktops - you just can't rely on it working, and the only fix is completely rejected by the zealots who disagree with the real world.

Do you mean SSH within the office or across vast distances? I find that the latter kinda sucks, while the former is never quite as convenient as a desktop. On the other hand if you work somewhere with a supercomputer in the basement, the calculations are different.

Both, depending where I am. And yes the latency can be a bit annoying, but copying files around and then running some script works fine anyhow (you just have to automate as much as possible there, it's no fun waiting 3-4 seconds for a directory listing to show up). As long as the shell, browser and my IDE run fine locally I can generally manage. Remote debugging works really well in my experience even with some latency so I'm quite content there

The smaller display is imo the biggest sacrifice with my 13" laptop compared to say a 17" one - still nothing compared to the multimonitor setup on the desktop, but it would certainly make everything less crowded.

In the end I think it's just different priorities: I have a desktop at work, so I mostly use my laptop when traveling or when I'm abroad. For the first weight and battery life are just the most important factors and I can live with the inconvenience of a less powerful notebook elsewhere.